The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Data from Mouse Stromal Cells Confound Proteomic Characterization and Quantification of Xenograft Models
Open accessPreprint — published as 10.1158/2767-9764.crc-22-0431 · Paper page
Abstract
Xenografts are essential models for studying cancer biology and developing oncology drugs, and are more informative with omics data. Most reported xenograft proteomics projects directly profiled tumors comprising human cancer cells and mouse stromal cells, followed by computational algorithms for assigning peptides to human and mouse proteins. We evaluated the performance of three main algorithms by carrying out benchmark studies on a series of human and mouse cell line mixtures and a set of liver patient-derived xenograft (PDX) models. Our study showed that approximately half of the characterized peptides are common between human and mouse proteins, and their allocations to human or mouse proteins cannot be satisfactorily achieved by any algorithm. As a result, many human proteins are erroneously labeled as differentially expressed proteins (DEP) between samples from the same human cell line mixed with different percentages of mouse cells, and the number of such false DEPs increases superquadratically with the mouse cell percentage. When mouse stromal cells are not removed from PDX tumors, about 30%–40% of DEPs from pairwise comparisons of PDX models are false positives, and about 20% of real DEPs cannot be identified irrespective of the threshold for calling differential expression. In conclusion, our study demonstrated that it is advisable to separate human and mouse cells in xenograft tumors before proteomic profiling to obtain more accurate measurement of species-specific protein expression. Significance:This study advocates the separate-then-run over the run-then-separate approach as a better strategy for more reliable proteomic profiling of xenografts.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Milo, R. (2013) · BioEssays · doi:10.1002/bies.201300066 · Cited by 614
Big data in basic and translational cancer research
Jiang, P., Sinha, S., Aldape, K., Hannenhalli, S., Sahinalp, C., & Ruppin, E. (2022) · Nature Reviews Cancer · doi:10.1038/s41568-022-00502-0 · Cited by 254
Cancer proteogenomics: current impact and future prospects
Mani, D. R., Krug, K., Zhang, B., Satpathy, S., Clauser, K. R., Ding, L., Ellis, M., Gillette, M. A., & Carr, S. A. (2022) · Nature Reviews Cancer · doi:10.1038/s41568-022-00446-5 · Cited by 229
Flagged first, then by citations
Metadata
- Authors
- Shi, Z., Mao, B., Chen, X., Hao, P., & Guo, S.
- Affiliations
- ShanghaiTech University (CN)
- Crown Bioscience (China) (CN)
- Corresponding author
- Guo, Sheng
- Published
- 2023-04-04
- OpenAlex
- W4362525506
- Cited by
- 0
- References
- 3
- Type
- other
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Chemistry › Spectroscopy › Advanced Proteomics Techniques and Applications
- Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Bioinformatics and Genomic Networks
- Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Advanced Biosensing Techniques and Applications
- Keywords
- patient-derived xenografts, differentially expressed proteins, false positives, liver cancer model
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review